Austin Tate wrote:
> At 22:17 17/12/2003 -0800, David Martin wrote:
>
>> Yes, I understand and am sympathetic to this general approach.
>>
>> But I don't think it's really any different than what I had in mind
>> when I wrote (1) above. After all, an OWL property instance with a
>> value can be thought of as a key=value pair, and OWL certainly
>> provides a general, extendable framework. Further, I am certainly not
>> advocating "lots" of attributes; just the minimum number needed to get
>> the job done. Finally, I don't see that "perform activity actor" is
>> any less "specialized" than the OWL-S "participant" property, or any
>> other property we may find that we need to clarify "who does what".
>
>
>
> I agree, its very similar... but there is a point to having ONE language
> independent conceptual underpinning... that of a set of activities that
> are constrained in arbitrary and extendible ways... it can be seen as
> providing a description of the space of legitimate behaviours without
> having a separate interpretation for each attribute of an object in a
> specific language. But we can certainly then map "common" constraints
> and properties onto predefined attributes to get back all of what we
> want from OWL-S, etc.
OK, sure. I have a followup question (and forgive me if you've already
answered this in other conversations) -
Are you advocating a *formalized* language independent conceptual
underpinning, or just an informal set of terminology for common
reference in natural language uses? Well, no doubt a formal approach is
desireable - but is it an essential part of what you are advocating?
Cheers,
David